Apply corrections to an ingested corpus

ABSTRACT

An approach is provided to correct documents ingested by a question answering (QA) system. A document previously ingested by the QA system is selected. A correction to the selected document is identified from one or more correction sources and the correction is applied to the selected document within the QA system. In one embodiment, the correction source is a non-ingested document, such as a published document or an issued correction. In another embodiment, the correction source is a post in a forum. In this embodiment, a statement in the ingested document is compared with a contradictory statement found in an ingested post of a threaded discussion. The statement and the contradictory statement are evaluated by the QA system. The statement in the ingested document is replaced with the contradictory statement in response to the evaluation revealing that the contradictory statement is correct and that the statement is incorrect.

BACKGROUND

With the increased usage of computing networks, such as the Internet,humans are currently inundated and overwhelmed with the amount ofstructured and unstructured information available to them from varioussources. Information gaps abound as users search for information onvarious subjects and try to piece together what they find and what theybelieve to be relevant. To assist with such searches, recent researchhas been directed to generating knowledge management systems which maytake an input, analyze it, and return results indicative of the mostprobable results to the input. Knowledge management systems provideautomated mechanisms for searching through a knowledge base withnumerous sources of content, e.g., electronic documents, and analyzethem with regard to an input to determine a result and a confidencemeasure as to how accurate the result is in relation to the input.

One such knowledge management system is the IBM Watson™ system availablefrom International Business Machines (IBM) Corporation of Armonk, N.Y.The IBM Watson™ system is an application of advanced natural languageprocessing, information retrieval, knowledge representation andreasoning, and machine learning technologies to the field of open domainquestion answering. The IBM Watson™ Question Answering (QA) system isbuilt on IBM's DeepQA technology used for hypothesis generation, massiveevidence gathering, analysis, and scoring. DeepQA takes an inputquestion, analyzes it, decomposes the question into constituent parts,generates one or more hypothesis based on both the decomposed questionand the results of a primary search of answer sources, performshypothesis and evidence scoring based on a retrieval of evidence fromevidence sources, performs synthesis of the one or more hypothesis, andbased on trained models, performs a final merging and ranking to outputan answer to the input question along with a confidence measure.

Once challenge faced by QA systems is that ingested documents aregenerally considered equal, from the standpoint of one documentoverriding or superseding another document. When a publisher offerscorrections to previously published documents, there is no way toprocess these corrections in place, generally the new corpus willcontain both the original and corrected documents or facts.Additionally, evidence sources are typically assigned a quality ratingeither by a general classification type (e.g., peer-reviewed journals ashigh quality, user blogs as low quality, etc.) or by recording how manytimes an evidence source is referenced in answers produced by the QAsystem. These evidence quality calculations are too static and coursegrained. They may not be updated when an evidence source is wrong, andmay not be adjusted when that source issues a correction.

BRIEF SUMMARY

According to one embodiment of the present disclosure, an approach isprovided to correct documents ingested by a question answering (QA)system. A document previously ingested by the QA system is selected. Acorrection to the selected document is identified from one or morecorrection sources and the correction is applied to the selecteddocument within the QA system. In one embodiment, the correction sourceis a non-ingested document, such as a published document or an issuedcorrection. In another embodiment, the correction source is a post in aforum. In this embodiment, a statement in the ingested document iscompared with a contradictory statement found in an ingested post of athreaded discussion. The statement and the contradictory statement areevaluated by the QA system. The statement in the ingested document isreplaced with the contradictory statement in response to the evaluationrevealing that the contradictory statement is correct and that thestatement is incorrect.

The foregoing is a summary and thus contains, by necessity,simplifications, generalizations, and omissions of detail; consequently,those skilled in the art will appreciate that the summary isillustrative only and is not intended to be in any way limiting. Otheraspects, inventive features, and advantages of the present disclosure,as defined solely by the claims, will become apparent in thenon-limiting detailed description set forth below.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWINGS

The present disclosure may be better understood, and its numerousobjects, features, and advantages made apparent to those skilled in theart by referencing the accompanying drawings, wherein:

FIG. 1 depicts a schematic diagram of one illustrative embodiment of aquestion/answer creation (QA) system in a computer network;

FIG. 2 illustrates an information handling system, more particularly, aprocessor and common components, which is a simplified example of acomputer system capable of performing the computing operations describedherein;

FIG. 3 is an exemplary diagram depicting the relationship between postsin a forum with candidate answers derived from the various posts;

FIG. 4 is an exemplary diagram depicting various processes and datastores used to perform inter-thread anaphora resolution;

FIG. 5 is an exemplary high level flowchart that performs steps toprocess a forum for ingestion to a question answering (QA) system;

FIG. 6 is an exemplary flowchart that processes a selected post from aforum;

FIG. 7 is an exemplary flowchart depicting anaphora resolution of termsfound in posts of a forum;

FIG. 8 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps performed by theprocess that ingests forum data with resolved anaphors to a questionanswering (QA) system;

FIG. 9 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that analyze a postrelevance;

FIG. 10 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that analyze a postfor leadership qualities;

FIG. 11 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that perform relevanceand sentiment analysis of posts in a forum;

FIG. 12 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that build apersona-based conversation between a question answering (QA) system anda user of the system;

FIG. 13 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that score candidateanswers for a persona-conversation between a question answering (QA)system and a user of the system;

FIG. 14 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that selectivelyingest post data from a forum into a corpus utilized by a questionanswering (QA) system;

FIG. 15 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that answer questionsin a question answering (QA) system using candidate answers derived fromscored answers found in threads;

FIG. 16 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that score candidateanswers found in threads using question answering (QA) system pipeline;

FIG. 17 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that score candidateanswers found in threads using structured scoring of data found in thethread;

FIG. 18 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that performstructured scoring of posts included in threads;

FIG. 19 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that annotate parentposts with gathered structured scoring data;

FIG. 20 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that provideannotation and structural scoring of posts viewed in a user interface;

FIG. 21 is an exemplary component diagram depicting components used inapplying corrections to an ingested corpus;

FIG. 22 is an exemplary flowchart depicting high level steps that applycorrections to an ingested corpus;

FIG. 23 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that resolve anaphorsfound in documents;

FIG. 24 is an exemplary flowchart depicting further steps used toresolve anaphors found in documents;

FIG. 25 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that identifiespossible corrections based on a selected correction source;

FIG. 26 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that apply possiblecorrections to an ingested document; and

FIG. 27 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that processes theidentified corrections in the ingested document.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particularembodiments only and is not intended to be limiting of the disclosure.As used herein, the singular forms “a”, “an” and “the” are intended toinclude the plural forms as well, unless the context clearly indicatesotherwise. It will be further understood that the terms “comprises”and/or “comprising,” when used in this specification, specify thepresence of stated features, integers, steps, operations, elements,and/or components, but do not preclude the presence or addition of oneor more other features, integers, steps, operations, elements,components, and/or groups thereof.

The corresponding structures, materials, acts, and equivalents of allmeans or step plus function elements in the claims below are intended toinclude any structure, material, or act for performing the function incombination with other claimed elements as specifically claimed. Thedescription of the present disclosure has been presented for purposes ofillustration and description, but is not intended to be exhaustive orlimited to the disclosure in the form disclosed. Many modifications andvariations will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the artwithout departing from the scope and spirit of the disclosure. Theembodiment was chosen and described in order to best explain theprinciples of the disclosure and the practical application, and toenable others of ordinary skill in the art to understand the disclosurefor various embodiments with various modifications as are suited to theparticular use contemplated.

The present invention may be a system, a method, and/or a computerprogram product. The computer program product may include a computerreadable storage medium (or media) having computer readable programinstructions thereon for causing a processor to carry out aspects of thepresent invention.

The computer readable storage medium can be a tangible device that canretain and store instructions for use by an instruction executiondevice. The computer readable storage medium may be, for example, but isnot limited to, an electronic storage device, a magnetic storage device,an optical storage device, an electromagnetic storage device, asemiconductor storage device, or any suitable combination of theforegoing. A non-exhaustive list of more specific examples of thecomputer readable storage medium includes the following: a portablecomputer diskette, a hard disk, a random access memory (RAM), aread-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROMor Flash memory), a static random access memory (SRAM), a portablecompact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), a digital versatile disk (DVD),a memory stick, a floppy disk, a mechanically encoded device such aspunch-cards or raised structures in a groove having instructionsrecorded thereon, and any suitable combination of the foregoing. Acomputer readable storage medium, as used herein, is not to be construedas being transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freelypropagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagatingthrough a waveguide or other transmission media (e.g., light pulsespassing through a fiber-optic cable), or electrical signals transmittedthrough a wire.

Computer readable program instructions described herein can bedownloaded to respective computing/processing devices from a computerreadable storage medium or to an external computer or external storagedevice via a network, for example, the Internet, a local area network, awide area network and/or a wireless network. The network may comprisecopper transmission cables, optical transmission fibers, wirelesstransmission, routers, firewalls, switches, gateway computers and/oredge servers. A network adapter card or network interface in eachcomputing/processing device receives computer readable programinstructions from the network and forwards the computer readable programinstructions for storage in a computer readable storage medium withinthe respective computing/processing device.

Computer readable program instructions for carrying out operations ofthe present invention may be assembler instructions,instruction-set-architecture (ISA) instructions, machine instructions,machine dependent instructions, microcode, firmware instructions,state-setting data, or either source code or object code written in anycombination of one or more programming languages, including an objectoriented programming language such as Smalltalk, C++ or the like, andconventional procedural programming languages, such as the “C”programming language or similar programming languages. The computerreadable program instructions may execute entirely on the user'scomputer, partly on the user's computer, as a stand-alone softwarepackage, partly on the user's computer and partly on a remote computeror entirely on the remote computer or server. In the latter scenario,the remote computer may be connected to the user's computer through anytype of network, including a local area network (LAN) or a wide areanetwork (WAN), or the connection may be made to an external computer(for example, through the Internet using an Internet Service Provider).In some embodiments, electronic circuitry including, for example,programmable logic circuitry, field-programmable gate arrays (FPGA), orprogrammable logic arrays (PLA) may execute the computer readableprogram instructions by utilizing state information of the computerreadable program instructions to personalize the electronic circuitry,in order to perform aspects of the present invention.

Aspects of the present invention are described herein with reference toflowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams of methods, apparatus(systems), and computer program products according to embodiments of theinvention. It will be understood that each block of the flowchartillustrations and/or block diagrams, and combinations of blocks in theflowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, can be implemented bycomputer readable program instructions.

These computer readable program instructions may be provided to aprocessor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, orother programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, suchthat the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computeror other programmable data processing apparatus, create means forimplementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or blockdiagram block or blocks. These computer readable program instructionsmay also be stored in a computer readable storage medium that can directa computer, a programmable data processing apparatus, and/or otherdevices to function in a particular manner, such that the computerreadable storage medium having instructions stored therein comprises anarticle of manufacture including instructions which implement aspects ofthe function/act specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram blockor blocks.

The computer readable program instructions may also be loaded onto acomputer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other deviceto cause a series of operational steps to be performed on the computer,other programmable apparatus or other device to produce a computerimplemented process, such that the instructions which execute on thecomputer, other programmable apparatus, or other device implement thefunctions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block orblocks.

The flowchart and block diagrams in the Figures illustrate thearchitecture, functionality, and operation of possible implementationsof systems, methods, and computer program products according to variousembodiments of the present invention. In this regard, each block in theflowchart or block diagrams may represent a module, segment, or portionof instructions, which comprises one or more executable instructions forimplementing the specified logical function(s). In some alternativeimplementations, the functions noted in the block may occur out of theorder noted in the figures. For example, two blocks shown in successionmay, in fact, be executed substantially concurrently, or the blocks maysometimes be executed in the reverse order, depending upon thefunctionality involved. It will also be noted that each block of theblock diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, and combinations of blocksin the block diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, can be implementedby special purpose hardware-based systems that perform the specifiedfunctions or acts or carry out combinations of special purpose hardwareand computer instructions. The following detailed description willgenerally follow the summary of the disclosure, as set forth above,further explaining and expanding the definitions of the various aspectsand embodiments of the disclosure as necessary.

FIG. 1 depicts a schematic diagram of one illustrative embodiment of aquestion/answer (QA) system 100 in a computer network 102. QA system 100may include knowledge manager 104, which comprises one or moreprocessors and one or more memories, and potentially any other computingdevice elements generally known in the art including buses, storagedevices, communication interfaces, and the like. Computer network 102may include other computing devices in communication with each other andwith other devices or components via one or more wired and/or wirelessdata communication links, where each communication link may comprise oneor more of wires, routers, switches, transmitters, receivers, or thelike. QA system 100 and network 102 may enable question/answer (QA)generation functionality for one or more content users. Otherembodiments may include QA system 100 interacting with components,systems, sub-systems, and/or devices other than those depicted herein.

QA system 100 may receive inputs from various sources. For example, QAsystem 100 may receive input from the network 102, a corpus ofelectronic documents 107 or other data, semantic data 108, and otherpossible sources of input. In one embodiment, some or all of the inputsto QA system 100 route through the network 102 and stored in knowledgebase 106. The various computing devices on the network 102 may includeaccess points for content creators and content users. Some of thecomputing devices may include devices for a database storing the corpusof data. The network 102 may include local network connections andremote connections in various embodiments, such that QA system 100 mayoperate in environments of any size, including local and global, e.g.,the Internet. Additionally, QA system 100 serves as a front-end systemthat can make available a variety of knowledge extracted from orrepresented in documents, network-accessible sources and/or structureddata sources. In this manner, some processes populate the knowledgemanager with the knowledge manager also including input interfaces toreceive knowledge requests and respond accordingly.

In one embodiment, a content creator creates content in a document 107for use as part of a corpus of data with QA system 100. The document 107may include any file, text, article, or source of data for use in QAsystem 100. Content users may access QA system 100 via a networkconnection or an Internet connection to the network 102, and may inputquestions to QA system 100, which QA system 100 answers according to thecontent in the corpus of data. As further described below, when aprocess evaluates a given section of a document for semantic content,the process can use a variety of conventions to query it from knowledgemanager 104. One convention is to send a well-formed question.

Semantic data 108 is content based on the relation between signifiers,such as words, phrases, signs, and symbols, and what they stand for,their denotation, or connotation. In other words, semantic data 108 iscontent that interprets an expression, such as by using Natural LanguageProcessing (NLP). In one embodiment, the process sends well-formedquestions (e.g., natural language questions, etc.) to QA system 100 andQA system 100 may interpret the question and provide a response thatincludes one or more answers to the question. In some embodiments, QAsystem 100 may provide a response to users in a ranked list of answers.

In some illustrative embodiments, QA system 100 may be the IBM Watson™QA system available from International Business Machines Corporation ofArmonk, N.Y., which is augmented with the mechanisms of the illustrativeembodiments described hereafter. The IBM Watson™ knowledge managersystem may receive an input question which it then parses to extract themajor features of the question, that in turn are then used to formulatequeries that are applied to the corpus of data. Based on the applicationof the queries to the corpus of data, a set of hypotheses, or candidateanswers to the input question, are generated by looking across thecorpus of data for portions of the corpus of data that have somepotential for containing a valuable response to the input question.

The IBM Watson™ QA system then performs deep analysis on the language ofthe input question and the language used in each of the portions of thecorpus of data found during the application of the queries using avariety of reasoning algorithms. There may be hundreds or even thousandsof reasoning algorithms applied, each of which performs differentanalysis, e.g., comparisons, and generates a score. For example, somereasoning algorithms may look at the matching of terms and synonymswithin the language of the input question and the found portions of thecorpus of data. Other reasoning algorithms may look at temporal orspatial features in the language, while others may evaluate the sourceof the portion of the corpus of data and evaluate its veracity.

The scores obtained from the various reasoning algorithms indicate theextent to which the potential response is inferred by the input questionbased on the specific area of focus of that reasoning algorithm. Eachresulting score is then weighted against a statistical model. Thestatistical model captures how well the reasoning algorithm performed atestablishing the inference between two similar passages for a particulardomain during the training period of the IBM Watson™ QA system. Thestatistical model may then be used to summarize a level of confidencethat the IBM Watson™ QA system has regarding the evidence that thepotential response, i.e. candidate answer, is inferred by the question.This process may be repeated for each of the candidate answers until theIBM Watson™ QA system identifies candidate answers that surface as beingsignificantly stronger than others and thus, generates a final answer,or ranked set of answers, for the input question. More information aboutthe IBM Watson™ QA system may be obtained, for example, from the IBMCorporation website, IBM Redbooks, and the like. For example,information about the IBM Watson™ QA system can be found in Yuan et al.,“Watson and Healthcare,” IBM developerWorks, 2011 and “The Era ofCognitive Systems: An Inside Look at IBM Watson and How it Works” by RobHigh, IBM Redbooks, 2012.

Types of information handling systems that can utilize QA system 100range from small handheld devices, such as handheld computer/mobiletelephone 110 to large mainframe systems, such as mainframe computer170. Examples of handheld computer 110 include personal digitalassistants (PDAs), personal entertainment devices, such as MP3 players,portable televisions, and compact disc players. Other examples ofinformation handling systems include pen, or tablet, computer 120,laptop, or notebook, computer 130, personal computer system 150, andserver 160. As shown, the various information handling systems can benetworked together using computer network 102. Types of computer network102 that can be used to interconnect the various information handlingsystems include Local Area Networks (LANs), Wireless Local Area Networks(WLANs), the Internet, the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN),other wireless networks, and any other network topology that can be usedto interconnect the information handling systems. Many of theinformation handling systems include nonvolatile data stores, such ashard drives and/or nonvolatile memory. Some of the information handlingsystems shown in FIG. 1 depicts separate nonvolatile data stores (server160 utilizes nonvolatile data store 165, and mainframe computer 170utilizes nonvolatile data store 175. The nonvolatile data store can be acomponent that is external to the various information handling systemsor can be internal to one of the information handling systems. Anillustrative example of an information handling system showing anexemplary processor and various components commonly accessed by theprocessor is shown in FIG. 2.

FIG. 2 illustrates information handling system 200, more particularly, aprocessor and common components, which is a simplified example of acomputer system capable of performing the computing operations describedherein. Information handling system 200 includes one or more processors210 coupled to processor interface bus 212. Processor interface bus 212connects processors 210 to Northbridge 215, which is also known as theMemory Controller Hub (MCH). Northbridge 215 connects to system memory220 and provides a means for processor(s) 210 to access the systemmemory. Graphics controller 225 also connects to Northbridge 215. In oneembodiment, PCI Express bus 218 connects Northbridge 215 to graphicscontroller 225. Graphics controller 225 connects to display device 230,such as a computer monitor.

Northbridge 215 and Southbridge 235 connect to each other using bus 219.In one embodiment, the bus is a Direct Media Interface (DMI) bus thattransfers data at high speeds in each direction between Northbridge 215and Southbridge 235. In another embodiment, a Peripheral ComponentInterconnect (PCI) bus connects the Northbridge and the Southbridge.Southbridge 235, also known as the I/O Controller Hub (ICH) is a chipthat generally implements capabilities that operate at slower speedsthan the capabilities provided by the Northbridge. Southbridge 235typically provides various busses used to connect various components.These busses include, for example, PCI and PCI Express busses, an ISAbus, a System Management Bus (SMBus or SMB), and/or a Low Pin Count(LPC) bus. The LPC bus often connects low-bandwidth devices, such asboot ROM 296 and “legacy” I/O devices (using a “super I/O” chip). The“legacy” I/O devices (298) can include, for example, serial and parallelports, keyboard, mouse, and/or a floppy disk controller. The LPC busalso connects Southbridge 235 to Trusted Platform Module (TPM) 295.Other components often included in Southbridge 235 include a DirectMemory Access (DMA) controller, a Programmable Interrupt Controller(PIC), and a storage device controller, which connects Southbridge 235to nonvolatile storage device 285, such as a hard disk drive, using bus284.

ExpressCard 255 is a slot that connects hot-pluggable devices to theinformation handling system. ExpressCard 255 supports both PCI Expressand USB connectivity as it connects to Southbridge 235 using both theUniversal Serial Bus (USB) the PCI Express bus. Southbridge 235 includesUSB Controller 240 that provides USB connectivity to devices thatconnect to the USB. These devices include webcam (camera) 250, infrared(IR) receiver 248, keyboard and trackpad 244, and Bluetooth device 246,which provides for wireless personal area networks (PANs). USBController 240 also provides USB connectivity to other miscellaneous USBconnected devices 242, such as a mouse, removable nonvolatile storagedevice 245, modems, network cards, ISDN connectors, fax, printers, USBhubs, and many other types of USB connected devices. While removablenonvolatile storage device 245 is shown as a USB-connected device,removable nonvolatile storage device 245 could be connected using adifferent interface, such as a Firewire interface, etcetera.

Wireless Local Area Network (LAN) device 275 connects to Southbridge 235via the PCI or PCI Express bus 272. LAN device 275 typically implementsone of the IEEE .802.11 standards of over-the-air modulation techniquesthat all use the same protocol to wireless communicate betweeninformation handling system 200 and another computer system or device.Optical storage device 290 connects to Southbridge 235 using Serial ATA(SATA) bus 288. Serial ATA adapters and devices communicate over ahigh-speed serial link. The Serial ATA bus also connects Southbridge 235to other forms of storage devices, such as hard disk drives. Audiocircuitry 260, such as a sound card, connects to Southbridge 235 via bus258. Audio circuitry 260 also provides functionality such as audioline-in and optical digital audio in port 262, optical digital outputand headphone jack 264, internal speakers 266, and internal microphone268. Ethernet controller 270 connects to Southbridge 235 using a bus,such as the PCI or PCI Express bus. Ethernet controller 270 connectsinformation handling system 200 to a computer network, such as a LocalArea Network (LAN), the Internet, and other public and private computernetworks.

While FIG. 2 shows one information handling system, an informationhandling system may take many forms, some of which are shown in FIG. 1.For example, an information handling system may take the form of adesktop, server, portable, laptop, notebook, or other form factorcomputer or data processing system. In addition, an information handlingsystem may take other form factors such as a personal digital assistant(PDA), a gaming device, ATM machine, a portable telephone device, acommunication device or other devices that include a processor andmemory.

FIGS. 3-27 depict an approach that corrects documents ingested by aquestion answering (QA) system. A document previously ingested by the QAsystem is selected. A correction to the selected document is identifiedfrom one or more correction sources and the correction is applied to theselected document within the QA system. In one embodiment, thecorrection source is a non-ingested document, such as a publisheddocument or an issued correction. In another embodiment, the correctionsource is a post in a forum. In this embodiment, a statement in theingested document is compared with a contradictory statement found in aningested post of a threaded discussion. The statement and thecontradictory statement are evaluated by the QA system. The statement inthe ingested document is replaced with the contradictory statement inresponse to the evaluation revealing that the contradictory statement iscorrect and that the statement is incorrect.

FIG. 3 is an exemplary diagram depicting the relationship between postsin a forum with candidate answers derived from the various posts. Postsincluded in a forum include main thread post 300 and child posts (320and 340). Posts are interrelated both through the common main threadpost (300) but also outside the main post where some posts, while beinga child post of the main post, also serve as “parent” posts to otherchild posts. FIG. 3 depicts an instance or embodiment of a threadeddiscussion, where there is a main post and child posts to a main post.In this embodiment, any posts can be a parent post of subsequent childposts, where text, images and information can be placed. There is animplicit relationship in a threaded discussion between the parent postand all child posts, and even grandchildren posts, etc. The threadeddiscussion can take place online, off-line, in direct communication in achat engine, or in comments to messages in text messages. These threadeddiscussions can be built based on phone conversations, such as textmessaging, where there is a back and forth discussion between multipleparties. Comments made to topics on the web can be treated as threadeddiscussions with a main post or topic and several child posts.

In the example shown, child post 320 is a child of main post 300 andchild post 340 is a child of post 320, so that post 320 is a child tomain post 300 and a parent post to child post 340. Relationships areestablished between child posts and their parent posts.

During analysis of the online forum, various types of data, orattributes, are gathered or deduced from the various posts. Each of theposts depicted (posts 300, 320, and 340) are each shown as having eachof the attributes. These attributes include the domain to which the postbelongs (domain 302 for main post 300, domain 322 for child post 322,and domain 342 for child post 342), questions included in the post(questions 304 for main post 300, questions 324 for child post 320, andquestions 344 for child post 340), the focus of the post (focus 306 formain post 300, focus 326 for child post 320, and focus 346 for childpost 340), the concept of the post (concept 308 for main post 300,concept 328 for child post 320, and concept 348 for child post 340), thestatements made in the post (statements 310 for main post 300,statements 330 for child post 320, and statements 350 for child post340), and the Lexical Answer Types (“LATs” which are the type of answerthat will be required for the question, such as a person, place, filmname, etc.). The LATs for the posts shown include LATs 312 for main post300, LATs 332 for child post 320, and LATs 352 for child post 340.

Sources of candidate answers 350 include any posts in the forum based onthe QA analysis performed by the QA system. The QA system utilizesresolved anaphors when analyzing child posts that refer to items thatwere included in parent posts. In the example, sources of candidateanswers 350 include a candidate answer derived from main post 300(candidate answer 360), a candidate answer derived from child post 320(candidate answer 370), and a candidate answer derived from child post340 (candidate answer 380).

The following is an example of anaphor resolution between posts. First,a main thread is posted to an online forum with a title of “Productoutage next Friday from noon to midnight” with post text as “Hieveryone—the area I work in uses the product a lot—any chance theupgrade outage can be pushed until the weekend?” A child post isreceived that says “Hi John—our infrastructure support is M-F, sopushing stuff to the weekends is not usually possible. Especially inthis case with technicians installing memory, they only work during theweek. Keep in mind, you can still develop, just not deliver changes toeach other.” Here, the word “stuff” is an anaphor that refers to theterm “upgrade” in the main post. Another post is received saying “Stilldown . . . any updates on the timeline?” Here, the words “still down”are an anaphor referring to the term “product outage” in the main postand the word “timeline” is an anaphor referring to the date and time(“Friday from noon to midnight”) as the original timeline when theoutage was scheduled. As used herein, a “term” in one post, such as aparent post, is any term, phrase, passage, or expression that provides areferential term to which an anaphor in a child post refers.

FIG. 4 is an exemplary diagram depicting various processes and datastores used to perform inter-thread anaphora resolution. Forum tree 400is a collection of data pertaining to an online forum that is beinganalyzed. Post data 410 shows data elements, or attributes, that aregathered or deduced from the various posts including the domain of thepost, questions posed by the post, the focus of the post, any conceptsincluded in the post, statements made in the post and the Lexical AnswerType (LAT) of the post. In addition, anaphors that are found andresolved for the post are also stored for the post.

In forum tree 400, post data includes a main post 420 and relationshipsbetween posts, signified as related posts 425. Relationships includeparent child relationships where one post (a child post) is posted afterand references another post (the parent post). Main post 420 serves as aparent post to one or more other (child) posts in the forum tree.

Anaphora detection process 430 detects anaphors in identified childposts and uses referential data found in parent posts to resolve suchanaphors. Anaphora detection can be broken down into different types ofanaphora detection. These different types of anaphora detection includepronoun type 435 where a pronoun found in a child post refers to a nounfound in a parent post. For example, the pronoun “he” found in a childpost might refer to a person that was referenced in a parent post.Pronoun anaphors are stored in data store 440.

Another type of anaphora detection is fragment type 445 where a subjectfragment that is found in a child post refers to a subject found in aparent post. Using the example introduced above for a software productoutage, a fragment (anaphor) found in a child post of “still down” wasdetected and found to refer back to the product outage term that wasreferenced in the main post. Fragment anaphors are stored in data store450.

Another type of anaphora detection is agreement type 455 where astatement of agreement that is found in a child post refers to anopinion or answer that was found in a parent post. For example, in aforum discussing a movie, a main post could opine that a particularmovie was “fantastic.” A child post could have a statement of agreement,such as “me too,” or “+1,” or “correct you are!” with such agreementsreferring back to the opinion that the movie was fantastic.Disagreements are also detected as agreement type anaphors where,instead of agreeing, the child post includes a statement ofdisagreement, such as “no way,” “I don't think so,” or “are you crazy?”with such agreements referring back to the opinion that the movie wasfantastic. Agreement type anaphors are stored in data store 460.

Another type of anaphora detection is statement/question type 455 wherea statement that is found in a child post refers to a question that wasfound in a parent post. For example, in a forum discussing the movie, amain post could pose a question of “who is the main actor in the movie?”A child post could provide an answer, such as “John Doe is the leadingman in the film” with such answer referring back to the question posedin the parent post. Statement/question type anaphors are stored in datastore 470.

Process 475 associates the anaphors found in the child posts to theirrespective terms found in their parent posts. The resolved anaphor(e.g., the pronoun “he” resolved to a particular person's name, etc.) isstored in the post's data in data store 410. To associate anaphors toparent posts, the parent posts with the relevant terms that isreferenced by the anaphor found in the child post needs to be detected.This detection is performed by checking for referential terms indifferent types of posts. At 480, the main post in the thread or forumis checked for referential terms. At 485, the parent post of the childpost is checked for referential terms. The referential terms might notbe in the main or parent post, but might be in an intervening “ancestor”post between the main post and the parent post. At 490, these ancestorposts are checked for referential terms. When referential terms arefound in a parent post (either the main post, the immediate parent post,or an ancestor post), the relationship is noted in forum tree 400.

FIG. 5 is an exemplary high level flowchart that performs steps toprocess a forum for ingestion to a question answering (QA) system. FIG.5 processing commences at 500 and shows the steps taken by a processthat performs a routine that processes online forums. At step 510, theprocess selects the first online forum that is being processed. At step520, the process selects the first thread from the selected forum. Atstep 525, the process selects the main post of selected thread.

At predefined process 530, the main post is processed (see FIG. 6 andcorresponding text for processing details). The data gathered fromprocessing the main post is stored as post data in data store 410. Theprocess determines as to whether there are child posts to process in theselected thread (decision 540). If there are more child posts toprocess, then decision 540 branches to the ‘yes’ branch to processadditional child posts. At step 550, the process selects the next postfrom selected thread. At predefined process 560, the process performsthe process selected post routine (see FIG. 6 and corresponding text forprocessing details). The data gathered from the child post is stored aspost data in data store 410. Processing then loops back to decision 540.

Once all of the child posts are processed, decision 540 branches to the‘no’ branch whereupon the process determines as to whether there aremore threads in the selected forum to process (decision 570). If thereare more threads in the selected forum to process, then decision 570branches to the ‘yes’ branch which loops back to step 520 to select thenext thread from the selected forum. This looping continues until thereare no more threads in the selected forum to process, at which pointdecision 570 branches to the ‘no’ branch for anaphora resolution.

At predefined process 575, the process performs the anaphora resolutionroutine (see FIG. 7 and corresponding text for processing details). Theanaphora resolution routine detects anaphors found in posts from postdata store 410, resolves the anaphors with terms found in referentialdata from other posts stored in post data store 410, and resolves theanaphor by storing the identified terms referenced by the anaphors inthe post data 410.

The process determines as to whether the end of forums being processedhas been reached (decision 580). If the end of forums being processedhas not yet been reached, then decision 580 branches to the ‘no’ branchwhich loops back to step 510 to select the next forum and process theposts in the forum as described above. This looping continues until theend of the forums being processed has been reached, at which pointdecision 580 branches to the ‘yes’ branch for further processing.

At predefined process 585, the process performs the Ingest Forum Datawith Resolved Anaphors routine (see FIG. 8 and corresponding text forprocessing details).At predefined process 590, the process performs theRelevance & Sentiment routine (see FIG. 11 and corresponding text forprocessing details). At predefined process 595, the process performs theBuild Persona-Based Conversation routine (see FIG. 12 and correspondingtext for processing details). FIG. 5 processing thereafter ends at 599.

FIG. 6 is an exemplary flowchart that processes a selected post from aforum. FIG. 6 processing commences at 600 and shows the steps thatperform a routine that processes data found in a post. The processdetermines as to whether the post being processed is the main post ofthe forum thread (decision 610). If the post being processed is the mainpost of the forum thread, then decision 610 branches to the ‘yes’ branchwhereupon, at step 620, the process initializes forum tree 400 used tostore the post data associated with this forum thread. On the otherhand, if the post being processed is not the main post of the forumthread, then decision 610 branches to the ‘no’ branch bypassing step620.

At step 630, the process generates a unique post identifier for thispost and adds a record used to store this post data in forum tree 400with new post data 410. At step 640, the process identifies referentialtypes based on words, terms, and phrases found in the post that is beingprocessed. Referential data can include the domain of the post,questions posed by the post, the focus of the post, any conceptsincluded in the post, statements made in the post and the Lexical AnswerType (LAT) of the post.

At step 650, the process identifies anaphora types based on the words,terms, and phrases found in post that is being processed. Types ofanaphors include pronoun type anaphors, fragment type anaphors,agreement type anaphors, and statement type anaphors.

At step 660, the process identifies any parent(s) to this post that arealready included in forum tree 400. Parent posts include the main postto the thread, the direct parent post of the thread, and any interveningparent (ancestor) posts between the main post and the direct parentpost. At step 670, the process adds links from this (child) post to anyidentified parent posts that were found in step 660. At step 675, therelationships between this post and parent posts are added to post dataincluded in data store 410. Links are added to this post as links to theparent posts, and in the respective parent post data (425) as links tothis child post with data store 425 being a subset of data store 410 andshown as a separate data store for illustrative purposes.

At predefined process 680, the process performs the Analyze PostRelevance routine (see FIG. 9 and corresponding text for processingdetails).At predefined process 690, the process performs the AnalyzePost for Leadership routine (see FIG. 10 and corresponding text forprocessing details). FIG. 6 processing thereafter returns to the callingroutine (see FIG. 5) at 695.

FIG. 7 is an exemplary flowchart depicting anaphora resolution of termsfound in posts of a forum. FIG. 7 processing commences at 700 and showsthe steps taken by a process that performs a routine that resolvesanaphors found in a child post. At step 710, the process selects thefirst post from forum tree 400. At step 720, the process selects thefirst anaphor from the selected post (if an anaphor exists in the post).At step 725, the process selects the first related post (immediateparent post, then main post, then ancestor posts) from forum tree 400.At step 730, the process selects the first referential term/type fromthe selected related post.

Table 750 depicts the relationship between anaphora types (755) andtheir respective referential types (760). Pronoun type anaphors areresolved with referential types found in a parent post of a noun orsubject. Fragment type anaphors are resolved with referential typesfound in a parent post of a statement, a Lexical Answer Type (LAT), orfocus. Agreement type anaphors are resolved with referential types foundin a parent post of a statement or opinion, a question, or a candidateanswer. At step 740, the process identifies anaphora type(s) for theselected anaphor based on the referential type as shown in table 750.

The process determines as to whether the identified anaphora type(s)were found in the selected child post (decision 765). If the identifiedanaphora type(s) were found in the selected child post, then decision765 branches to the ‘yes’ branch for continued processing. On the otherhand, if the identified anaphora type(s) were not found in the selectedchild post, then decision 765 branches to the ‘no’ branch bypassingdecision 770 and step 775. The process determines as to whether theanaphora term found in the child post matches the referential term foundin the parent post (decision 770). If the anaphora term found in thechild post matches the referential term found in the parent post, thendecision 770 branches to the ‘yes’ branch, whereupon, at step 775, theprocess annotates the anaphora relationship with related postreferential term. In addition, at step 775, the anaphor found in thechild post is resolved using the referential term found in the parentpost. The annotated anaphora relationship data and the resolved anaphordata is stored in post data 410. On the other hand, if the anaphora termfound in the child post does not match the referential term found in theparent post, then decision 770 branches to the ‘no’ branch bypassingstep 775.

The process determines as to whether there are more referential termsthat need to be processed (decision 780). If there are more referentialterms that need to be processed, then decision 780 branches to the ‘yes’branch which loops back to step 730 to select and process the nextreferential term. This looping continues until all referential termshave been processed, at which point decision 780 branches to the ‘no’branch.

The process determines as to whether there are more related posts thatneed to be processed (decision 785). If there are more related poststhat need to be processed, then decision 785 branches to the ‘yes’branch which loops back to step 725 to select and process the nextrelated post. This looping continues until all related posts have beenprocessed, at which point decision 785 branches to the ‘no’ branch.

The process determines as to whether there are more anaphors included inthe selected post that need to be processed (decision 790). If there aremore anaphors included in the selected post that need to be processed,then decision 790 branches to the ‘yes’ branch whereupon processingloops back to step 720 to select and process the next anaphor from theselected post. This looping continues until all anaphors in the selectedpost have been processed, at which point decision 790 branches to the‘no’ branch.

The process determines as to whether there are more posts in the forumtree that need to be processed (decision 795). If there are more postsin the forum tree that need to be processed, then decision 795 branchesto the ‘yes’ branch which loops back to select and process the next postfrom the forum tree. This looping continues until all of the posts havebeen processed, at which point decision 795 branches to the ‘no’ branchand processing returns to the calling routine (see FIG. 5) at 799.

FIG. 8 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps performed by theprocess that ingests forum data with resolved anaphors to a questionanswering (QA) system. At predefined process 850, the process performsthe Structured Scoring of Posts that uses child agreement data toanalyze statements made in parent posts. At predefined process 800, theprocess performs the Selectively Ingest Forum Posts with ResolvedAnaphors into QA System Knowledge Base Based on Relevance to Parent Postand/or Main Post routine (see FIG. 14 and corresponding text forprocessing details). Predefined process 800 reads post data 410 fromforum tree 400 and ingests the post data to knowledge base 106 that isutilized by question answering (QA) system 100. When requestor 810, suchas a user of the QA system, poses a question to the QA system, the QAsystem may provide candidate answers that utilize the ingested forumdata with such ingested data including resolved anaphors found in childpost data.

FIG. 9 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that analyze therelevance of a post. FIG. 9 processing commences at 900 and shows thesteps taken by a process that performs a routine that analyzes a postfor relevance. At step 905, the process retrieves data from forum treepertaining to a post, the post's parent(s) post(s), and the main post.The process determines as to whether the selected post is the main post(decision 910). If the selected post is the main post, then decision 910branches to the ‘yes’ branch and processing returns to the callingroutine (see FIG. 5) at 915. On the other hand, if the selected post isnot the main post, then decision 910 branches to the ‘no’ branch andprocessing continues.

At step 920, the process compares and scores this child post's LexicalAnswer Type (LAT) to its parent's LAT utilizing inter-thread anaphoradata. Step 920 stores the Parent-LAT relationship score in memory area925. At step 930, the process compares and score this child post's LATto the LAT of the main post utilizing inter-thread anaphora data. Step930 stores the Main-LAT relationship score in memory area 935.

At step 940, the process compares and score this child post's focus toits parent(s) focus utilizing inter-thread anaphora data. Step 940stores the parent-focus relationship score in memory area 945. At step950, the process compares and scores this child post's focus to thefocus of the main post utilizing inter-thread anaphora data. Step 950stores the main-focus relationship score in memory area 955.

At step 960, the process scores the sentiment of this child post to thecontent of parent post utilizing inter-thread anaphora data. Step 960stores the parent sentiment score in memory area 965. At step 970, theprocess scores the sentiment of this child post to the content of themain post utilizing inter-thread anaphora data. Step 970 stores the mainsentiment score in memory area 975. At step 980, the process stores therelevance scores (LAT & focus for the parent and main) and the sentimentscores related to post in post data 410. FIG. 9 processing thereafterreturns to the calling routine (see FIG. 5) at 995.

FIG. 10 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that analyze a postfor leadership qualities. FIG. 10 processing commences at 1000 and showsthe steps taken by a process that performs a routine that analyzes apost for leadership or follower qualities. At step 1010, the processanalyzes the selected post text from forum tree 400 for assertions oraction verbs where the poster (writer of the post) makes statements toperform a function with the analysis of such leadership personautilizing inter-thread anaphora data previously identified for the post.

The process determines as to whether leadership persona was identifiedin the post by step 1010 (decision 1020). If leadership persona wasidentified in the post, then decision 1020 branches to the ‘yes’ branchwhereupon, at step 1030 the process calculates a leader persona scorebased on the assertions and/or statements made in post with surety. Theleader persona score is stored as leadership data in the data pertainingto the post (data store 410). FIG. 10 processing thereafter returns tothe calling routine (see FIG. 5) at 1040.

On the other hand, if leadership persona was not identified in the post,then decision 1020 branches to the ‘no’ branch bypassing step 1030 andbranching to steps that analyze the post for follower persona traits. Atstep 1050, the process analyzes the post text for questions posed by theposter or agreement made by the poster with little or no actionsrelevant to the post's parent post or to the main post. The analysisutilizes inter-thread anaphora data previously identified for the post.The process determines as to whether the analysis performed at step 1050identified a follower persona in the post (decision 1160). If a followerpersona is identified in the post, then decision 1160 branches to the‘yes’ branch, whereupon at step 1070 the process calculates the followerpersona score for the post based on the extent of questions or agreementin the post with little or no actions that are relevant to the post'sparent post or to the main post. The follower persona score is stored asfollower data in the leadership data pertaining to the post (data store410). On the other hand, if a follower persona is not identified in thepost, then decision 1160 branches to the ‘no’ branch bypassing step1070. FIG. 11 processing thereafter returns to the calling routine (seeFIG. 5) at 1195.

FIG. 11 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that perform relevanceand sentiment analysis of posts in a forum. FIG. 11 processing commencesat 1100 and shows the steps taken by a process that performs a relevanceand sentiment analysis routine. At step 1110, the process selects thefirst post from bottom (last) post in tree as the forum tree isprocessed in reverse order from the bottom of the tree to the top (mainpost) of the tree. The process determines as to whether the selectedpost has child posts that reference the selected post (decision 1120).If the selected post has child posts that reference the selected post,then decision 1120 branches to the ‘yes’ branch to process the selectedpost using steps 1130 through 1180. On the other hand, if the selectedpost does not have any child posts that reference the selected post,then decision 1120 branches to the ‘no’ branch bypassing steps 1130through 1180.

At step 1130, the process retrieves and combines the relevance scores(LAT/focus) of the child posts that refer to this selected (parent)post. At step 1140, the process analyzes the combined relevance scoresof the child posts. For example, the relevance scores can be compared tothresholds that identify whether the post is somewhat more relevant thanother posts. In one embodiment, the relevance scores are combinedbeforehand so that the tree's relevance scores can be used to obtainthresholds (e.g., above average relevance score, etc.). At step 1150,the process boosts or suppresses the selected post's relevance scorebased on analysis of the child posts' relevance scores that wasperformed in step 1140. For example, if the combined relevance scoresare above average, then the selected post's relevance score might beboosted and if the combined relevance score is below average, then theselected post's relevance score might be reduced or otherwisesuppressed. Additionally, posts with relevance scores in the topquartile or top ten percent might be further boosted and those postswith relevance scores in the bottom quartile or bottom ten percent mightbe further suppressed or reduced.

At step 1160, the process retrieves and combine the sentiment scores ofthe selected post's child posts. At step 1170, the process analyzes thecombined sentiment scores of the selected post's child posts. Forexample, the sentiment scores can be compared to thresholds thatidentify whether the post is somewhat more relevant than other posts. Inone embodiment, the sentiment scores are combined beforehand so that thetree's sentiment scores can be used to obtain thresholds (e.g., aboveaverage sentiment score, etc.). At step 1180, the process boosts orsuppresses the selected post's sentiment score based on the analysis ofthe selected post's child posts' sentiment scores that was performed instep 1170. For example, if the combined sentiment scores are aboveaverage, then the selected post's sentiment score might be boosted andif the combined sentiment score is below average, then the selectedpost's sentiment score might be reduced or otherwise suppressed.Additionally, posts with sentiment scores in the top quartile or top tenpercent might be further boosted and those posts with sentiment scoresin the bottom quartile or bottom ten percent might be further suppressedor reduced.

The process determines as to whether the process has reached the top offorum tree with the last post selected having been the main post(decision 1190). If the process has not yet reached the top of forumtree, then decision 1190 branches to the ‘no’ branch which loops back toselect and process the next post up the forum tree. This loopingcontinues until all of the posts have been processed, at which pointdecision 1190 branches to the ‘yes’ branch and processing returns to thecalling routine (see FIG. 5) at 1195.

FIG. 12 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that build apersona-based conversation between a question answering (QA) system anda user of the system. FIG. 12 processing commences at 1200 and shows thesteps taken by a process that performs a persona-based conversationroutine that allows a user to have a natural language conversation witha question answering (QA) system.

At step 1205, the process configures the QA System to engage inconversation with a user. At step 1210, the process selects aconfiguration profile from a set of available profiles. The profilesinclude a preference to weigh candidate answers based on relevance, toweigh candidate answers based on sentiment, to weigh candidate answersbased on both relevance and sentiment, and whether a leader or followerpersona desired in the candidate answer. Step 1210 retrieves personabased profiles from data store 1215 and stores the selectedpersona-based profile in memory area 1220.

At step 1225, the process receives a question from a user. In oneembodiment, the user is the entity that selected the persona-basedprofile by interacting with the QA system so that the selectedpersona-based profile was selected in step 1210. At step 1230, theprocess employed by the QA system identifies candidate answers fromtraditional knowledge base 106 with answers matching the focus andLexical Answer Type (LAT) of the question that was posed by the user.The candidate answers are stored as potential candidate answers inmemory area 1235. At step 1240, the process employed by the QA Systemidentifies a set of conversational candidate answers from a forum-basedcorpus (forum trees 400) with these candidate answers also matching thefocus and the LAT of the question posed by the user. Theseconversational candidate answers are stored in memory area 1245.

At predefined process 1250, the process performs the Score CandidateAnswers routine (see FIG. 13 and corresponding text for processingdetails). Predefined process 1250 takes the traditional candidateanswers from memory area 1235 and the conversational candidate answersfrom memory area 1245 to result in one or more final conversationalanswers that are stored in memory area 1255. At step 1260, the processreplies to the user in with the final conversational answer(s) that werestored in memory area 1255. In one embodiment, a conversational tone isused in the reply so that the answer has a conversational feel notunlike the tone used in the user's original question posed to the userin step 1225. FIG. 12 processing thereafter ends at 1295.

In one embodiment, when ingesting corpora that is in the forum or threadform, the main topic is treated as the main context. We identify theseries of focus and LAT for the main topic. A focus and LAT are deduced,but maintain the most confident focus and LAT. The Inter-Thread AnaphoraResolution data is utilized to diagnose associations across focuses inthe responses to then in combination determine a relevance score foreach child response. The child responses are analyzed for similaritybased on the focus, LAT and word vocabulary. The sentiment levels foreach individual post in relation to the main terms are recorded witheach conversation. The positive, neutral, or negative phrase in thestatement is determined and a sentiment level is associated with thatpart of the statement. In addition, the embodiment utilizes prismaticframes with a sentiment level attached to identify categorize thosephrases as positive or negative in their relation to the main topic orparent topic.

Example Parsing with SVO and Sentiment

Overall question (main post): “How is the weather?”

Response post: “The weather is beautiful. It's seventy degrees andclear. A sunny day like today is great for surfing. I'm the best surferever, just ask my awesome friends!”

S1: The weather is beautiful. Subject=“weather”, overall relevance=80%.“beautiful”=subject complement adjective, sentiment=70%

S2: “It's seventy degrees and clear.” Anaphora resolution resolves“It's” as the subject=“weather”, overall relevance=100%. as “seventydegrees” and “clear” are highly correlated to the weather type.sentiment=neutral.

S3: “A sunny day like today is great for surfing.” Subject=“sunny day”,an ontology tells us this is type=weather, so overall relevance=80%.Subject complements “sunny” and “great” lead to sentiment=90%

S4 a: “I'm the best surfer ever.” Subject=I, I is type=person, norelevance to question, this subject-verb-object (SVO) is not considered.

S4 b: “Just ask my awesome friends!” In this command structure, theimplied subject is “you”, type=person, no relevance to this question,this SVO is not considered.

Thus, only the first three sentences are considered in scoring theresponse (S1, S2, and S3). This response will be scored with highrelevance and medium-high sentiment.

Note that a generic sentiment scoring algorithm would have given thisresponse a very high sentiment, as the fourth sentence wasoverwhelmingly high sentiment. However, the high sentiment was notrelated to the topic at hand, so our algorithm disregards it.

Below is a second example forum thread ingestion. A forum thread appearsas follows. (Responses are marked with Rn, nested responses with RnRm.).Inter-Thread Anaphor Resolution (ITAR) is used to resolve anaphors.

TOPIC: “What's the weather like where you are?” (LAT=WeatherConditions)

R1: “It's sunny and 70 degrees with a slight breeze” (ITAR to “Theweather is sunny and 70 degrees with a slight breeze”,Persona=“Leader”), (relevant=100% from three weather terms of sunny/70degrees/slight breeze, sentiment=5)

*R2: “It's a beautiful 70 degrees and I'm going to the beach!” (ITAR to“The weather is a beautiful 70 degrees and I'm going to the beach!”Persona=“Leader”) (relevant=90% from two weather terms of beautiful/70degrees, overall sentiment=8, beautiful 70 degrees sentiment=9, I'mgoing to the beach sentiment=7)

**R2R1 “Here too! I can't wait to get some surfing in!” (ITAR to ‘Theweather is beautiful here too and I'm going to the beach! I'm going tothe beach!’) (ITAR Here also, I cannot wait to get some surfing in!“Persona=“Leader”) (relevant=20%, sentiment=9) (relevant=”20%,sentiment=5)

***R2R1R1 “I love surfing!” (relevance to Topic=0%, sentiment=7,relevance to Parent=90%, Persona=“Follower”)

*R3: “Who cares, I never go outside” (relevant=10%, sentiment=1,Persona=“Leader”)

*R4: “I love it!!!” (relevant=10%, sentiment=10)

FIG. 13 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that score candidateanswers for a persona-conversation between a question answering (QA)system and a user of the system. FIG. 13 processing commences at 1300and shows the steps taken by a process that performs a routine thatscores candidate answers for a persona-based conversation with aquestion answering (QA) system. At step 1310, the process selects thefirst candidate answer from a set of weighted candidate answers storedin data store 1320. Weighted candidate answers 1320 include both thecandidate answers stored in memory area 1235 in FIG. 12 as well as theconversational candidate answers stored in memory area 1245 in FIG. 12.

At step 1330, the process compares the selected candidate answer to theselected persona-based profile that was previously stored in memory area1220. At step 1340, the process increases the weight of the selectedcandidate answer the more it matches the selected persona-based profile(sentiment/relevance) and decreases the weight the more it does notmatch the selected persona-based profile. The process determines as towhether the end of the set of candidate answers has been reached(decision 1350). If the end of the set of candidate answers has not yetbeen reached, then decision 1350 branches to the ‘no’ branch which loopsback to step 1310 to select and process the next candidate answer fromdata store 1320. This looping continues until all of the candidateanswers have been processed, at which point decision 1350 branches tothe ‘yes’ branch for further processing. At step 1360, the processselects the final conversational answer, or answers, as the candidateanswer(s) with the highest weight after taking into account thepersona-based profile that has been selected. The final conversationalcandidate answer(s) are stored in memory area 1255. FIG. 13 processingthereafter returns to the calling routine (see FIG. 12) at 1395.

FIG. 14 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that selectivelyingest post data from a forum into a corpus utilized by a questionanswering (QA) system. FIG. 14 processing commences at 1400 and showsthe steps taken by a process that performs a routine that selectivelyingests post data to a knowledge base utilized by a question answering(QA) system. At step 1410, the process selects the first set of postdata from forum tree 400.

At step 1420, the process compares the selected post data (e.g.,relevance data, sentiment data, etc.) to ingestion thresholds (e.g.,minimum relevance score, minimum sentiment score, etc.). The ingestionthresholds are retrieved from data store 1430. The process determines asto whether to ingest the selected post data based on comparisonperformed in step 1420 (decision 1440). If the determination is toingest the selected post data based on comparison, then decision 1440branches to the ‘yes’ branch whereupon, at step 1450, the processingests the selected post data into knowledge base 106. The post dataincludes the text of the post, the referential data of the post (thedomain of the post, questions posed in the post, the focus of the post,the concept of the post, statements made in the post, and the LexicalAnswer Type (LAT) of the post). The post data also includes resolvedanaphor data such as resolved pronoun type anaphors, resolved fragmenttype anaphors, and resolved agreement or disagreement type anaphors. Thepost data further includes child and parent links to the selected post,and relevance data such as relevance and sentiment scores of the post.In one embodiment, the post data also includes leadership data found forthe post, relevance data found for the post, and sentiment data foundfor the post.

On the other hand, if the determination is to avoid ingestion of theselected post data based on the comparison performed in step 1420, thendecision 1440 branches to the ‘no’ branch. At step 1460, the processdiscards the selected post data in inhibits ingestion of the post datainto knowledge base 106.

The process determines as to whether there are more posts in the forumor thread that need to be processed (decision 1470). If there are moreposts in the forum or thread that need to be processed, then decision1470 branches to the ‘yes’ branch which loops back to select and processthe next post from post data 410 as described above. This loopingcontinues until all of the posts from post data 410 have been processed,at which point decision 1470 branches to the ‘no’ branch and theselective ingestion process ends at 1495.

FIG. 15 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that answer questionsin a question answering (QA) system using candidate answers derived fromscored answers found in threads. FIG. 15 processing commences at 1500and shows the steps taken by a process that performs a routine thatdetermines a correct answer based on information obtained from a forumthread. At step 1505, the process receives a question from requestor810. Requestor 810 may be a user of the QA system or an automatedrequestor. At step 1510, the process performs question decompositionthat identifies the lexical answer type (LAT) and focus of the questionsubmitted by the requestor. The LAT and focus are stored in memory area1515.

At step 1520, the process selects the first online forum/thread from theingested forums and threads included in forum tree data store 400. Atstep 1525, the process selects the first main thread that was posted tothe selected forum. During previous ingestion of the forum/thread, theLAT and focus of the posts, including the main post, were identified andstored as metadata in forum tree 400. At step 1530, the process comparesthe LAT/focus of the question posed by the requestor with the LAT/focusof the selected main post from the selected thread and the processscores the similarity. For example, if the requestor asked “who was thebest batter in MLB in 2014?” then the LAT/focus would match threadswhere the main post dealt with major league baseball, battingstatistics, and the like. Main posts that do not match the question'sLAT/focus would receive low score, while main posts that focus on MLB,batting statistics, and the like would receive higher scores. A mainpost that is exactly like, or substantially similar to, the requestor'squestion would likely receive the highest score. The scores resultingfrom the comparison are stored in memory area 1535.

The process determines as to whether there are more threads in the forumto process (decision 1540). If there are more threads in the forum toprocess, then decision 1540 branches to the ‘yes’ branch which loopsback to select and compare the main post from the next thread. Thislooping continues until there are no more threads in the forum toprocess, at which point decision 1540 branches to the ‘no’ branch forfurther processing. The process next determines as to whether there aremore forums in forum tree 400 to process (decision 1545). If there aremore forums in the forum tree to process, then decision 1545 branches tothe ‘yes’ branch which loops back to select the next forum from forumtree 400 and process the threads included in the forum as describedabove. This looping continues until there are no more forums to process,at which point decision 1545 branches to the ‘no’ branch for furtherprocessing.

At step 1550, the process sorts the similarity scores of the forums andthreads identified by the processing described above from high scores tolow scores with high scores being associated with threads found to bemore similar to the question posed by the requestor. The sortedsimilarity scores are stored in memory area 1555. At predefined process1560, the process performs the Score Answers in Threads routine (seeFIG. 16 and corresponding text for processing details). Predefinedprocess 1560 traverses the threads identified with high similarityscores from memory area 1555 and scores posts found in such threads todiscover one or more answers that are returned in memory area 1565. Atstep 1570, the process returns the one or more answers from memory area1565 to requestor 810. Processing thereafter ends at 1595.

FIG. 16 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that score candidateanswers found in threads using question answering (QA) system pipeline.FIG. 16 processing commences at 1600 and shows the steps taken by aprocess that performs a routine that scores answers found in posts ofthreads.

At step 1610, the process selects the highest scored thread from memoryarea 1555 with the highest scored thread being the thread with a mainpost that was found to be most similar to the question submitted by therequestor. At step 1620, the process retrieves data pertaining to theselected thread from forum tree 400 along with the question's LAT/focusfrom memory area 1515 and creates a temporary version of the selectedthread using the question posed by the requestor as the main post of thethread rather than the actual main post of the thread. The temporaryversion of the thread with the substituted main post is stored in memoryarea 1625.

At predefined process 1630, the process performs the inter-threadanaphora resolution routine using the question posed by the requestor asthe main parent post and selected answer being derived from child postsin the thread (see FIGS. 5-7 and corresponding text for processingdetails). The anaphora resolution data identified by predefined process1630 is stored in memory area 1625. At step 1640, the process selectsthe first post from the selected thread in reverse order after theselected thread has had anaphora resolution processing performed.

The posts are selected from memory area 1625 that now has anaphoraresolution data included. At step 1650, the process treats the selected(child) post as the candidate answer to the question posed by therequestor and scores the candidate answer using the QA System pipeline.The score generated by the QA System pipeline is stored as metadata tothe child post in memory area 1625. At predefined process 1660, theprocess performs the Structured Scoring routine (see FIG. 17 andcorresponding text for processing details). During structured scoring,the system identifies scoring included in the other posts of the threadthat, for example, “like” or “up-vote”, the selected post as providingquality information or answer data. The structured score resulting frompredefined process 1660 is stored in memory area 1625.

The process determines as to whether the main, or topmost, post has beenreached (decision 1670). If the main, or topmost, post has not beenreached, then decision 1670 branches to the ‘no’ branch which loops backto select and process the next post from the thread in reverse orderuntil the topmost post is reached. When the main, or topmost, post hasbeen reached, then decision 1670 branches to the ‘yes’ branch andprocessing continues. At step 1675, the process retains top posts fromthe selected temporary thread based on the respective answer scores. Thetop scored posts are considered candidate answers to the question posedby the requestor and these candidate answers are stored in memory area1555. In one embodiment, a threshold is used so that only thosecandidate answers with a sufficiently high score are retained in memoryarea 1555.

The process determines as to whether there are more threads to process(decision 1690). If there are more threads to process, then decision1690 branches to the ‘yes’ branch which loops back to select and processthe next thread and its posts as described above. This looping continuesuntil there are no more threads to process, at which point decision 1690branches to the ‘no’ branch and processing returns to the callingroutine (see FIG. 15) at 1695.

FIG. 17 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that score candidateanswers found in threads using structured scoring of data found in thethread. FIG. 17 processing commences at 1700 and shows the steps takenby a process that performs a routine that performs structured scoring.

At step 1710, the process treats the selected post as the parent post.At step 1720, the process initializes the structured score of the parentpost to zero. The structured score is stored in memory area 1625. Atstep 1730, the process selects the first post in the selected thread inreverse order from memory area 1625. At step 1740, the process uses thepreviously gathered anaphora data to determine if the selected childpost is referring to the post that is being treated as the parent post.The process determines as to whether the selected post is referring tothe parent post (decision 1750). If the selected post is referring tothe parent post, then decision 1750 branches to the ‘yes’ branch toprocess structured scoring found within the selected “child” post usingsteps 1760 through 1780. On the other hand, the selected post is notreferring to the parent post, then decision 1750 branches to the ‘no’branch bypassing steps 1760 through 1780.

At step 1760, the process identifies any agreement, up-vote, “me-too's”,“+1s”, “likes,” “dislikes,” etc. found in child post that is referringto agreement or disagreement with the parent post. The processdetermines as to whether any agreement or disagreement was found in thechild post referring to the parent post (decision 1770). If an agreementor a disagreement was found, then decision 1770 branches to the ‘yes’branch to perform step 1780. On the other hand, if no agreement ordisagreement was found, then decision 1770 branches to the ‘no’ branchbypassing step 1780. At step 1780, the process adjusts the structuredscore of the selected parent post accordingly (e.g., increment, or “+1”if agreement found, decrement or “−1” if disagreement found, etc.). Theadjusted structure score is stored in memory area 1625.

The process determines as to whether the parent post has been reached(decision 1790). If the parent post has not been reached, then decision1790 branches to the ‘yes’ branch which loops back to select the nextpost in the thread until the parent post has been reached. When theparent post has been reached, then decision 1790 branches to the ‘no’branch and processing returns to the calling routine (see FIG. 16) at1795.

FIG. 18 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that performstructured scoring of posts included in threads. FIG. 18 processingcommences at 1800 and shows the steps taken by a process that performs aroutine that provides structured scoring of posts included in threadsingested in the QA system. At step 1810, the process selects the firstthread from forum tree 400. At step 1820, the process selects the firstparent post in the selected thread in reverse order (from the bottom ofthe thread to the top). Parent and child threads were previouslyidentified during anaphora resolution processing. At step 1825, theprocess initializes the structured score of parent post to zero. Thestructured score is stored in forum tree 400 and associated with theselected post.

At step 1830, the process selects the first child post from the selectedthread in reverse order (from the bottom of the thread to the selectedparent post). At step 1840, the process uses the previously gatheredanaphora data to determine if the selected child post refers to theselected parent post. The process determines as to whether this childpost refers to the selected parent post (decision 1850). If this childpost refers to the selected parent post, then decision 1850 branches tothe ‘yes’ branch to perform steps 1860 through 1870. On the other hand,if this child post does not refer to the selected parent post, thendecision 1850 branches to the ‘no’ branch bypassing steps 1860 through1870.

At step 1860, the process identifies any agreement, up-vote, “me-too's”,“+1s”, “likes,” “dislikes,” etc. found in child post that is referringto agreement or disagreement with the parent post. The processdetermines as to whether any agreement or disagreement was found in thechild post referring to the parent post (decision 1870). If an agreementor a disagreement was found, then decision 1870 branches to the ‘yes’branch to perform step 1880. On the other hand, if no agreement ordisagreement was found, then decision 1870 branches to the ‘no’ branchbypassing step 1880. At step 1880, the process adjusts the structuredscore of the selected parent post accordingly (e.g., increment, or “+1”if agreement found, decrement or “−1” if disagreement found, etc.). Theadjusted structure score is stored in forum tree 400.

The process determines as to whether the selected parent post has beenreached (decision 1875). If the selected parent post has not beenreached, then decision 1875 branches to the ‘no’ branch which loops backto select the next post from the thread until the parent post has beenreached. This looping continues until the selected parent post has beenreached, at which point decision 1875 branches to the ‘yes’ branch forfurther processing. At predefined process 1880, the process performs theAnnotate Parent routine (see FIG. 19 and corresponding text forprocessing details). The Annotate Parent routine adds metadata, orannotations, to the parent post as stored in forum tree 400 so that suchannotations might be visible to users that view the post with a userinterface described in FIG. 20.

The process determines as to whether the top of the thread has beenreached (decision 1885). If the top of the thread has not been reached,then decision 1885 branches to the ‘no’ branch which loops back toselect the next parent post at step 1820 and perform the processingdescribed above. This looping continues until the top of the thread hasbeen reached, at which point decision 1885 branches to the ‘yes’ branchfor further processing. The process determines as to whether there aremore forums and/or threads in forum tree 400 to process (decision 1890).If there are more forums and/or threads in the forum tree to process,then decision 1890 branches to the ‘yes’ branch which loops back toselect and process the next thread as described above. This loopingcontinues until alll of the threads in forum tree 400 have beenprocessed, at which point decision 1890 branches to the ‘no’ branch andprocessing returns to the calling routine (see FIG. 17) at 1895.

FIG. 19 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that annotate parentposts with gathered structured scoring data. FIG. 19 processingcommences at 1900 and shows the steps taken by a process that performs aroutine that annotates a parent post stored in forum tree 400. At step1910, the process compares the parent's structured score with athreshold that indicates whether the answer included in the parent postis incorrect. The process determines as to whether the parent post isincorrect (decision 1920). If the parent post is incorrect, thendecision 1920 branches to the ‘yes’ branch for further processing. Onthe other hand, if the parent post is correct, then decision 1920branches to the ‘no’ branch and processing returns at 1925. In oneembodiment, parent posts found to be correct can also be annotated usingsteps 1930 through 1990 to annotate the parent post with the supportfound in the child posts indicating that the parent post is correct.

At step 1930, the process selects the first child post from the selectedthread in reverse order (bottom of the thread to the parent post). Atstep 1940, the process uses previously gathered anaphora data todetermine if the selected child post refers to the parent post anddisagrees with such post. The process determines as to whether the childpost refers to and disagrees with the parent post (decision 1950). Ifthe child post refers to and disagrees with the parent post, thendecision 1950 branches to the ‘yes’ branch to process steps 1960 through1980. On the other hand, if the child post either does not refer to theparent post or does not disagree with the parent post, then decision1950 branches to the ‘no’ branch bypassing steps 1960 through 1980.

The process determines as to whether an answer or statement was includedin the child post (decision 1960). If an answer or statement wasincluded in the child post, then decision 1960 branches to the ‘yes’branch to perform steps 1970 through 1980. On the other hand, if ananswer or statement was not included in the child post, then decision1960 branches to the ‘no’ branch bypassing steps 1970 through 1980.

The process determines as to whether the structural score of theselected child post exceeds a positive threshold that indicatessatisfactory support with the answer or statement included in the childpost (decision 1970). If the structural score of the selected child postexceeds the positive threshold that indicates satisfactory support withthe answer or statement included in the child post, then decision 1970branches to the ‘yes’ branch whereupon, at step 1980, the selectedparent post is annotated with the selected child answer and itsstructural score (support). On the other hand, if the structural scoreof the selected child post does not exceeds the positive threshold thatindicates satisfactory support with the answer or statement included inthe child post, then decision 1970 branches to the ‘no’ branch bypassingstep 1980.

The process determines as to whether there are more child posts toprocess for the selected parent post (decision 1990). If there are morechild posts to process for the selected parent post, then decision 1990branches to the ‘yes’ branch which loops back to select and process thenext child post in the thread. This looping continues until there are nomore child posts to process, at which point decision 1990 branches tothe ‘no’ branch and processing returns to the calling routine (see FIG.18) at 1995.

FIG. 20 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that provideannotation and structural scoring of posts viewed in a user interface.FIG. 20 processing commences at 2000 and shows the steps taken by aprocess that performs a routine that provides a forum browsing userinterface (UI). At step 2010, the process selects first forum/threadfrom forum tree 400. At step 2020, the process selects the first desiredpost in the selected thread. At step 2030, the process retrieves theselected post data from forum tree 400 with the post data includinganaphora data and any annotated answer data provided during theprocessing shown in FIG. 19.

At step 2050, the process indicates any replacement of anaphora withreferential terms (if any) and also highlights the replacement in theuser interface. User interface 2040 shows an example of a post beingselected that states that “he” was the best batter in 2014. The UI showsthat “he” is anaphorically referring to a player named “Jose Altuve.”The process determines as to whether the selected post has beenannotated with answers that have sufficient structural support (decision2060). If the selected post has been annotated with answers that havesufficient structural support, then decision 2060 branches to the ‘yes’branch whereupon at step 2070, the process indicates other answers andrespective structural scores in the user interface with the otheranswers and respective structural support being annotations provided tothe selected post using the process shown in FIG. 19. Different types ofanswers or statements might have been provided by child answers. First,a factual statement made in the post that the player had a “0.350”batting average was found to be in dispute with a number of child posts(15 upvotes) stating that the player instead had a “0.341” battingaverage with such disagreement being shown in the user interface. Next,the statement of “best batter” has been called into question by a numberof child posts that disagree that batting average is the best way todetermine the best batter. As shown, twelve posts agreed that “sluggingpercentage” is a better determination of “best batter” with a differentplayer having the highest slugging percentage. Nine posts agreed that“RBIs” is is a better determination of “best batter” with a differentplayer having the highest number of RBIs. Finally, five posts agreedthat the number of home runs hit is a better determination of “bestbatter” with a different player having the highest number of home runs.This annotation, therefore, not only informs the user viewing the postusing the user interface of factual discrepancies provided by the post,but also provide alternative viewpoints for certain statements orgeneralities made in the post.

Returning to decision 2060, if the selected post has not been annotatedwith answers that have sufficient structural support, then decision 2060branches to the ‘no’ branch bypassing step 2070. The process determinesas to whether the user selects another post in this thread (decision2080). If the user selects another post in this thread, then decision2080 branches to the ‘yes’ branch which loops back to retrieve anddisplay the next post selected by the user with any annotation andanaphora data. On the other hand, if no more posts are selected fromthis thread, then decision 2080 branches to the ‘no’ branch for furtherprocessing. The process determines as to whether the user selectsanother forum/thread from the forum tree (decision 2090). If the userselects another forum/thread from the forum tree, then decision 2090branches to the ‘yes’ branch which loops back to retrieve post data fromthe next forum/thread selected by the user. This looping continues untilthe user is finished using the user interface, at which point decision2090 branches to the ‘no’ branch and UI processing ends at 2095.

FIG. 21 is an exemplary component diagram depicting components used inapplying corrections to an ingested corpus. Correction sources 2100 canvary from online forums ingested into the question answering (QA) systemin forum tree 400, new documents 2110, and issued corrections 2120.Documents already ingested into corpus 106 may have factual statementsthat are in error or otherwise incorrect. For example, a newspaper mayhave published an article that stated that “Jane Doe” was arrested for aparticular crime, when in fact “John Doe” was the person arrested.

When the document is ingested into corpus 106 with the incorrect factualstatement, a question posed to the QA system, such as “who was arrestedfor the crime on Main Street in Anywhere, NC last Friday” mayerroneously answer as “Jane Doe” unless correction sources are used tocorrect the incorrect data. For example, a forum related to happeningsin Anywhere, NC may have a thread about the arrest with many postsagreeing that John Doe was the person arrested for the crime. Likewise,a different newspaper or article, such as in an online publication, mayhave been published listing the correct person (John Doe) as beingarrested instead of Jane Doe. In addition, the newspaper that originallypublished the article may issue a “correction” in a subsequentpublication and/or online once the error becomes known to the editorsand publishers of the newspaper. These correction sources are processedby the QA system process that corrects the ingested corpus (2130). Asshown in more detail in FIGS. 22-27, facts and statements in thecorrection sources are analyzed and compared to the facts and statementsincluded in ingested documents and, when an error is detected, thecorrections are applied to the ingested documents in the QA systemcorpus 106.

FIG. 22 is an exemplary flowchart depicting high level steps that applycorrections to an ingested corpus. FIG. 22 processing commences at 2200and shows the steps taken by a process that performs a routine thatcorrects documents already ingested in a corpus. At step 2210, theprocess selects the first ingested document that has been identified forpossible correction. Many different approaches can be used to identifydocuments already ingested that may need correction. All documents of acorpus can be selected, a sampling of documents can be selected, orparticular documents can be selected based on criteria such as qualityof the publications, errors encountered in QA system processing whensuch documents were utilized, user complaints about quality of suchdocuments, and the like.

At predefined process 2220, the process performs the resolve anaphorsand references in selected document routine (see FIGS. 23 and 24 andcorresponding text for processing details). The result of predefinedprocess 2220 is the document text with resolved anaphors that are storedin memory area 2225. The resolved anaphors allow a better comparison ofthe terms in the document with terms found in correction sources.

At step 2230, the process selects the first source of correction data.The correction source might be an ingested forum posts/threads, anissued correction document, a new document, and the like. At predefinedprocess 2240, the process performs the resolve anaphors and referencesin the selected correction source routine (see FIGS. 23-24 andcorresponding text for processing details). Similar to anaphorresolution of the ingested document, anaphor resolution is performed onthe correction source so that the terms, facts, and statements includedin the correction source can be more accurately compared to the terms,facts, and statements included in the ingested document. The text of thecorrection source is stored in memory area 2260 along with thecorrection source's resolved anaphors. At predefined process 2260, theprocess performs the identify possible corrections based on selectedsource routine (see FIG. 25 and corresponding text for processingdetails). During predefined process 2260, the ingested document withresolved anaphors is retrieved from memory area 2225 and compared to thecorrection source with resolved anaphors from memory area 2250 toidentify statements included in the ingested document that may need tobe corrected. These statements are stored in memory area 2270.

The process determines as to whether there are more correction sourcesto process to identify possible errors in the ingested document(decision 2275). If there are more correction sources to process, thendecision 2275 branches to the ‘yes’ branch which loops back to selectand process the next correction source as described above. This loopingcontinues until there are no more correction sources to process, atwhich point decision 2275 branches to the ‘no’ branch and processingcontinues.

At predefined process 2280, the process performs the apply possiblecorrections to ingested document routine (see FIG. 26 and correspondingtext for processing details). During predefined process 2280, thepossible corrections identified and stored in memory area 2270 areanalyzed to determine which statements, if any, represent corrections tomake to the ingested document. Those statements that are deemed to bevalid corrections are processed and the ingested document is correctedin the corpus.

The process determines as to whether there are more ingested documentsthat have been identified for possible correction (decision 2290). Ifthere are more ingested documents that have been identified for possiblecorrection, then decision 2290 branches to the ‘yes’ branch which loopsback to select and process the next identified ingested document. Thislooping continues until there are no more ingested documents identifiedfor possible correction, at which point decision 2290 branches to the‘no’ branch and processing ends at 2295.

FIG. 23 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that resolve anaphorsfound in documents. The processing shown in FIGS. 23 and 24 are used toresolve anaphors in both the ingested document as well as the correctionsources. FIG. 23 processing commences at 2300 and shows the steps takenby a process that performs a routine that resolves anaphors found inboth the selected ingested document and the various correction sourcedocuments. The process determines as to whether the input document is acorrection source that is a forum, thread, or post (decision 2305). Ifthe input document is a correction source that is a forum, thread, orpost, then decision 2305 branches to the ‘yes’ branch whereupon,processing returns to the calling routine (see FIG. 22) with a returncode indicating that the anaphora data should be retrieved from theforum tree (see Forum Tree 400 in FIG. 21 and throughout FIGS. 3-20). Onthe other hand, if the input document is not a correction source that isa forum, thread, or post, then decision 2305 branches to the ‘no’ branchand processing continues. At step 2308, the process selects the firstpassage from the input document with the input document being either theselected ingested document or a correction source document.

The process determines as to whether the passage being processed is themain passage of the document (decision 2310). If the passage beingprocessed is the main passage of the document, then decision 2310branches to the ‘yes’ branch whereupon, at step 2320, the processinitializes passage tree 2301 used to store the passage data associatedwith this document. On the other hand, if the passage being processed isnot the main passage of the document, then decision 2310 branches to the‘no’ branch bypassing step 2320.

At step 2330, the process generates a unique passage identifier for thispassage and adds a record used to store this passage data in passagetree 2301 with new passage data 2302. At step 2340, the processidentifies referential types based on words, terms, and phrases found inthe passage that is being processed. Referential data can include thedomain of the passage, questions posed by the passage, the focus of thepassage, any concepts included in the passage, statements made in thepassage and the Lexical Answer Type (LAT) of the passage.

At step 2350, the process identifies anaphora types based on the words,terms, and phrases found in passage that is being processed. Types ofanaphors include pronoun type anaphors, fragment type anaphors,agreement type anaphors, and statement type anaphors.

At step 2360, the process identifies any parent(s) to this passage thatare already included in passage tree 2301. Parent passages include themain passage to the document, the direct parent passage of the document,and any intervening parent (ancestor) passages between the main passageand the direct parent passage. At step 2370, the process adds links fromthis (child) passage to any identified parent passages that were foundin step 2360. At step 2375, the relationships between this passage andparent passages are added to passage data included in data store 2302.Links are added to this passage as links to the parent passages, and inthe respective parent passage data (2303) as links to this child passagewith data store 2303 being a subset of data store 2302 and shown as aseparate data store for illustrative purposes.

A decision is made by the process as to whether the end of the inputdocument has been reached (decision 2380). If the end of the inputdocument has not been reached, then decision 2380 branches to the ‘no’branch which loops back to select and process the next passage in thedocument as described above. This looping continues until the end of theinput document has been reached, at which point decision 2380 branchesto the ‘yes’ branch and further anaphora resolution processing isperformed at predefined process 2390 (see FIG. 24 and corresponding textfor processing details). FIG. 23 processing thereafter returns to thecalling routine (see FIG. 22) at 2395.

FIG. 24 is an exemplary flowchart depicting anaphora resolution of termsfound in passages of a forum. FIG. 24 processing commences at 2400 andshows the steps taken by a process that performs a routine that resolvesanaphors found in a child passage. At step 2410, the process selects thefirst passage from passage tree 2301. At step 2420, the process selectsthe first anaphor from the selected passage (if an anaphor exists in thepassage). At step 2425, the process selects the first related passage(immediate parent passage, then main passage, then ancestor passages)from passage tree 2301. At step 2430, the process selects the firstreferential term/type from the selected related passage.

Table 2450 depicts the relationship between anaphora types (2455) andtheir respective referential types (2460). Pronoun type anaphors areresolved with referential types found in a parent passage of a noun orsubject. Fragment type anaphors are resolved with referential typesfound in a parent passage of a statement, a Lexical Answer Type (LAT),or focus. Agreement type anaphors are resolved with referential typesfound in a parent passage of a statement or opinion, a question, or acandidate answer. At step 2440, the process identifies anaphora type(s)for the selected anaphor based on the referential type as shown in table2450.

The process determines as to whether the identified anaphora type(s)were found in the selected child passage (decision 2465). If theidentified anaphora type(s) were found in the selected child passage,then decision 2465 branches to the ‘yes’ branch for continuedprocessing. On the other hand, if the identified anaphora type(s) werenot found in the selected child passage, then decision 2465 branches tothe ‘no’ branch bypassing decision 2470 and step 2475. The processdetermines as to whether the anaphora term found in the child passagematches the referential term found in the parent passage (decision2470). If the anaphora term found in the child passage matches thereferential term found in the parent passage, then decision 2470branches to the ‘yes’ branch, whereupon, at step 2475, the processannotates the anaphora relationship with related passage referentialterm. In addition, at step 2475, the anaphor found in the child passageis resolved using the referential term found in the parent passage. Theannotated anaphora relationship data and the resolved anaphor data isstored in passage data 2401. On the other hand, if the anaphora termfound in the child passage does not match the referential term found inthe parent passage, then decision 2470 branches to the ‘no’ branchbypassing step 2475.

The process determines as to whether there are more referential termsthat need to be processed (decision 2480). If there are more referentialterms that need to be processed, then decision 2480 branches to the‘yes’ branch which loops back to step 2430 to select and process thenext referential term. This looping continues until all referentialterms have been processed, at which point decision 2480 branches to the‘no’ branch.

The process determines as to whether there are more related passagesthat need to be processed (decision 2485). If there are more relatedpassages that need to be processed, then decision 2485 branches to the‘yes’ branch which loops back to step 22402 to select and process thenext related passage. This looping continues until all related passageshave been processed, at which point decision 2485 branches to the ‘no’branch.

The process determines as to whether there are more anaphors included inthe selected passage that need to be processed (decision 2490). If thereare more anaphors included in the selected passage that need to beprocessed, then decision 2490 branches to the ‘yes’ branch whereuponprocessing loops back to step 2420 to select and process the nextanaphor from the selected passage. This looping continues until allanaphors in the selected passage have been processed, at which pointdecision 2490 branches to the ‘no’ branch.

The process determines as to whether there are more passages in thepassage tree that need to be processed (decision 2495). If there aremore passages in the passage tree that need to be processed, thendecision 2495 branches to the ‘yes’ branch which loops back to selectand process the next passage from the passage tree. This loopingcontinues until all of the passages have been processed, at which pointdecision 2495 branches to the ‘no’ branch and processing returns to thecalling routine (see FIG. 5) at 2499.

FIG. 25 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that identifiespossible corrections based on a selected correction source. FIG. 25processing commences at 2500 and shows the steps taken by a process thatperforms a routine that identifies possible corrections to make to aningested document. At step 2510, the process selects the first LAT/focusin the ingested document. The LAT/focus can be retrieved from memoryarea 2225. At step 2520, the process attempts to find the selectedLAT/focus in the selected correction source with the correction source'sLAT/focus being retrieved from memory area 2250. The process determinesas to whether the same LAT/focus was found in both the ingested documentand the correction source (decision 2530). If the same LAT/focus wasfound in both the ingested document and the correction source, thendecision 2530 branches to the ‘yes’ branch to perform steps 2540 and2550. On the other hand, if the same LAT/focus was not found in both theingested document and the correction source, then decision 2530 branchesto the ‘no’ branch bypassing steps 2540 and 2550. At step 2540, theprocess compares the statement in the correction source with thestatement in the ingested document with both statements having the sameLAT/focus. At step 2550, the process notes the agreement or disagreementof the statement between the correction source and the ingesteddocument. The agreement or disagreement data is stored in memory area2270.The process determines as to whether there are more passages(LAT/focus) in the ingested document to process (decision 2560). Ifthere are more passages (LAT/focus) in the ingested document to process,then decision 2560 branches to the ‘yes’ branch which loops back toselect the next LAT/focus from the ingested document and processes it asdescribed above. This looping continues until there are no more morepassages (LAT/focus) to process in the ingested document, at which pointdecision 2560 branches to the ‘no’ branch and processing returns to thecalling routine (see FIG. 22) at 2595.

FIG. 26 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that apply possiblecorrections to an ingested document. FIG. 26 processing commences at2600 and shows the steps taken by a process that performs a routine thatapplies possible corrections to the selected ingested document. At step2605, the process selects the first statement the from ingested documentthat was identified and compared to the correction sources with theresulting agreement and disagreement data being retrieved from memoryarea 2270.

At step 2610, the process compiles the agreement and disagreement datagathered from correction sources pertaining to the selected statement.For example, a particular statement might have agreement from fivecorrection sources and disagreement from one correction source making itmore likely that the statement in the ingested document is correct.Likewise, another statement might have agreement from no correctionsources and disagreement from six correction sources, making it morelikely that the statement in the ingested document is incorrect and thata correction can be found in one of the correction sources. The compiledagreement and disagreement data is stored in memory area 2615. At step2620, the process scores the compiled agreement and disagreement datafrom memory area 2615 and stores the compiled scores in memory area2625. Using the example from above, the first statement with most of thecorrection sources agreeing with the ingested document statement mighthave a score indicating that the statement is most likely true. Incontrast, the second statement with all of the correction sourcesdisagreeing with the statement from the ingestion source might have ascore indicating that the statement is most likely false and should becorrected.

The process determines as to whether the score stored in memory area2625 indicates a disagreement with the statement made in the ingestiondocument that exceeds a given threshold indicating that the statement isdeemed to be incorrect (decision 2630). If the score indicates adisagreement with the statement made in the ingestion document thatexceeds the threshold indicating that the statement is deemed to beincorrect, then decision 2630 branches to the ‘yes’ branch to performsteps 2635 through 2650. On the other hand, the score does not indicatea disagreement with the statement made in the ingestion document thatexceeds the threshold indicating that the statement is deemed to beincorrect, then decision 2630 branches to the ‘no’ branch bypassingsteps 2635 through 2650.

At step 2635, the process scores the statements found in the variouscorrection sources. In one embodiment, the statements are scored usingthe QA system pipeline. The scores of the statements found in thecorrection sources are stored in memory area 2640. The processdetermines as to whether a “correct” answer was identified in thestatement scores based on one of the statements having a high enoughanswer scores so that the correction statement should be used in placeof the statement found in the ingested document (decision 2645). If a“correct” answer was identified, then decision 2645 branches to the‘yes’ branch whereupon, at step 2650, the process records the statementfrom the ingested document and the replacement statement in memory area2660. On the other hand, if a “correct” answer was not identified, thendecision 2645 branches to the ‘no’ branch bypassing step 2650.

The process determines as to whether there are more statements from theingested document to process (decision 2670). If there are morestatements from the ingested document to process, then decision 2670branches to the ‘yes’ branch which loops back to select and process thenext statement as described above. This looping continues until thereare no more statements to process, at which point decision 2670 branchesto the ‘no’ branch. At predefined process 2680, the process performs theProcess Corrections routine (see FIG. 27 and corresponding text forprocessing details). Predefined process 2680 reads the corrections frommemory area 2660 and applies the correction to the ingested document inthe QA system corpus. FIG. 26 processing thereafter returns to thecalling routine (see FIG. 22) at 2695.

FIG. 27 is an exemplary flowchart depicting steps that processes theidentified corrections in the ingested document. FIG. 27 processingcommences at 2700 and shows the steps taken by a process that performs aroutine that processes corrections in a document previously ingestedinto QA system corpus 106. The process determines as to whether anycorrections were found for the selected ingested document (decision2710). If no corrections were found, then decision 2710 branches to the‘no’ branch whereupon processing returns to the calling routine (seeFIG. 26) without making any corrections to the ingested document. On theother hand, if corrections were found, then decision 2710 branches tothe ‘yes’ branch and processing continues.

At step 2725, the process archives a copy of the original ingesteddocument to archive data store 2730. The archive allows the original,uncorrected ingested document to be compared to the corrected document.At step 2740, the process selects the first correction to make to theingested document with the correction being retrieved from memory area2660. At step 2750, the process finds the first incorrect statement inselected ingested document 2755 to correct using the selected correctiondata. At step 2760, the process corrects the selected incorrectstatement in the ingested document with the correct statement that wasretrieved from memory area 2660.

At step 2770, the process records the correction that was made to theingested document in metadata corresponding to the ingested document.The metadata and the archived copy of the original ingested documentallow reconstruction of changes made to the ingested document.

The process determines as to whether there are more places in theingested document to correct using the selected correction data(decision 2780). If there are more places in the ingested document tocorrect using the selected correction data, then decision 2780 branchesto the ‘yes’ branch which loops back to select the next place in theingested document with an incorrect statement that is corrected usingthe selected correction data. This looping continues until there are nomore places in the ingested document to correct using the selectedcorrection, at which point decision 2780 branches to the ‘no’ branch.

The process determines as to whether there are more corrections toprocess that are stored in memory area 2660 (decision 2790). If thereare more corrections to process, then decision 2790 branches to the‘yes’ branch which loops back to select and process the next correctionas described above. This looping continues until there are no morecorrections to process, at which point decision 2790 branches to the‘no’ branch and processing returns to the calling routine (see FIG. 26)at 2795.

While particular embodiments of the present disclosure have been shownand described, it will be obvious to those skilled in the art that,based upon the teachings herein, that changes and modifications may bemade without departing from this disclosure and its broader aspects.Therefore, the appended claims are to encompass within their scope allsuch changes and modifications as are within the true spirit and scopeof this disclosure. Furthermore, it is to be understood that thedisclosure is solely defined by the appended claims. It will beunderstood by those with skill in the art that if a specific number ofan introduced claim element is intended, such intent will be explicitlyrecited in the claim, and in the absence of such recitation no suchlimitation is present. For non-limiting example, as an aid tounderstanding, the following appended claims contain usage of theintroductory phrases “at least one” and “one or more” to introduce claimelements. However, the use of such phrases should not be construed toimply that the introduction of a claim element by the indefinitearticles “a” or “an” limits any particular claim containing suchintroduced claim element to disclosures containing only one suchelement, even when the same claim includes the introductory phrases “oneor more” or “at least one” and indefinite articles such as “a” or “an”;the same holds true for the use in the claims of definite articles.

The invention claimed is:
 1. A method implemented by an informationhandling system that includes a memory and a processor, the methodcomprising: selecting a document that has been ingested by a questionanswering (QA) system; ingesting an online forum into the QA system,wherein the online forum includes a plurality of posts that are part ofthe threaded discussion; comparing a statement in the selected documentwith a contradictory statement found in one of the posts of the threadeddiscussion; evaluating the statement and the contradictory statement bythe QA system; and replacing the statement in the selected document withthe contradictory statement in response to the evaluation revealing thatthe contradictory statement is correct and that the statement isincorrect, wherein the selected document is part of a knowledge baseutilized by the QA system to answer questions.
 2. The method of claim 1wherein the statement and the contradictory statement each pertain to asame lexical answer type (LAT) and focus.
 3. The method of claim 1further comprising: archiving an original copy of the selected documentprior to applying the correction.
 4. The method of claim 1 furthercomprising: recording the one of the posts as a correction source in ametadata associated with the selected document.
 5. An informationhandling system comprising: one or more processors; one or more datastores accessible by at least one of the processors; a memory coupled toat least one of the processors; and a set of computer programinstructions stored in the memory and executed by at least one of theprocessors in order to perform actions of: selecting a document that hasbeen ingested by a question answering (QA) system; ingesting an onlineforum into the QA system, wherein the online forum includes a pluralityof posts that are part of a threaded discussion; comparing a statementin the selected document with a contradictory statement found in one ofthe posts of the threaded discussion; evaluating the statement and thecontradictory statement by the QA system; and replacing the statement inthe selected document with the contradictory statement in response tothe evaluation revealing that the contradictory statement is correct andthat the statement is incorrect, wherein the selected document is partof a knowledge base utilized by the QA system to answer questions. 6.The information handling system of claim 5 wherein the statement and thecontradictory statement each pertain to a same lexical answer type (LAT)and focus.
 7. The information handling system of claim 5 wherein theactions further comprise: archiving an original copy of the selecteddocument prior to applying the correction.
 8. The information handlingsystem of claim 5 wherein the actions further comprise: recording theone of the posts as a correction source in a metadata associated withthe selected document.
 9. A computer program product stored in acomputer readable storage medium, comprising computer program code that,when executed by an information handling system, causes the informationhandling system to perform actions comprising: selecting a document thathas been ingested by a question answering (QA) system; ingesting anonline forum into the QA system, wherein the online forum includes aplurality of posts that are part of a threaded discussion; comparing astatement in the selected document with a contradictory statement foundin one of the posts of the threaded discussion; evaluating the statementand the contradictory statement by the QA system; and replacing thestatement in the selected document with the contradictory statement inresponse to the evaluation revealing that the contradictory statement iscorrect and that the statement is incorrect, wherein the selecteddocument is part of a knowledge base utilized by the QA system to answerquestions.
 10. The computer program product of claim 9 wherein thestatement and the contradictory statement each pertain to a same lexicalanswer type (LAT) and focus.
 11. The information handling system ofclaim 5 wherein the actions further comprise: archiving an original copyof the selected document prior to applying the correction.
 12. Theinformation handling system of claim 5 wherein the actions furthercomprise: recording the one of the posts as a correction source in ametadata associated with the selected document.